Summary: In January 2022 we upheld a complaint against the Council and it agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. The Council was at fault as it delayed completing an agreed action by three months. It has now completed the agreed action but should apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay.

The complaint

1. We upheld a complaint against the Council in January 2022, following which the Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused. The Council has failed to provide evidence of compliance with a remedy action within the agreed timescale.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Council.
5. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

6. Mr and Mrs X brought a complaint to us in 2021. Part of the complaint was that the Council had failed to provide them with agreed respite care.
7. In January 2022, we upheld that the Council had not offered respite provision in line with an adoption support agreement in place. As part of the recommendations, the Council agreed to set out how it intended to meet its obligation to offer respite in line with the agreement going forward, within one month of the final decision.

What happened

8. During March 2022, we asked the Council for evidence it had completed the agreed action, but the Council did not provide this.
9. During April we continued to chase the Council for evidence of compliance with the agreed remedy. The Council told us it had arranged a meeting with the complainants to discuss the issue of respite and would update up by 6 May 2022. It did not do this.
10. We told the Council we were registering a new complaint due to non-compliance.
11. The Council updated us in mid-May. It said it had met with Mr and Mrs X to discuss respite care and had a further meeting planned for the following week.
12. The Council met with Mr and Mrs X and, following this, sent them a letter setting out how it proposed to meet its obligation to offer respite care going forward.

Analysis

13. In January 2022, the Council agreed to set out for Mr and Mrs X how it would meet its obligation to provide respite care within one month of the final decision. It did not do this. The Council is at fault for non-compliance with an agreed remedy.
14. When a council agrees to our recommendations, it should make every effort to comply within the agreed timescales. The Council did not do this in this case. This is a breach of trust, causes uncertainty and frustration for complainants and risks undermining public confidence in the council.
15. The Council has now completed the remedy action, three months later than agreed. This delay is likely to have caused Mr and Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. We have made a recommendation to remedy the additional injustice the Council’s non‑compliance has caused Mr and Mrs X.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will write to Mr and Mrs X to apologise for its non-compliance with the agreed remedy action timescale and the frustration and uncertainty caused by this.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault and the Council has agreed action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman